Comment by sbuttgereit | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sbuttgereit | Hacker News Reader

There is a need to really consider definitions of selfish/cooperating here and skimming the article, the authors seem to take a narrow, short term focused set of definitions that aren't always applicable to these terms as they can be more broadly defined.

For example, I'm a married man. I am married because I want to share my life experiences with my wife. I want to cooperate with her in building those experiences and navigating through the options. I engage in this deep cooperation and sharing with another person precisely because I am selfish. I give money and sometimes my time to causes like the Red Cross and Institute for Justice, again, not because I'm naturally cooperative, but because I view, over the long term, that these organizations may actually either be helpful to me someday or will help mold the kind of society I want to live in: I'm being cooperative because this sort of cooperation is ultimately in my best interest... in other words, I'm being cooperative precisely because I am being selfish.

I could rob a bank to get cash now, cheat a merchant that gives me too much change, simply be rude to people because it feels good in any one moment, or... as the test in the article states... take from the communal pot without contributing anything. That's the sort of thing the article is calling selfish, but looking at my life as a whole, each one of those things actually aren't all that selfish; they simply satiate in the moment and comes with consequences if one things more clearly about it. Each of those "quick fixes" end up causing me more long term harm than good (always being on the run, making a society where dishonesty is the norm, encouraging everyone to be rude, encouraging less sensible generosity).

So yeah, we may cooperate as a default, we may make short-sighted self-interested decisions with a little thought, but selfish cooperation takes the most thinking.

When you define selfishness as you do, it becomes tautological and therefore meaningless. If individuals are atomic and autonomous agents making decisions that maximize whatever it is they value (survival, comfort, pride, ego) and minimizing whatever it is they dislike (pain, guilt, loneliness, cognitive dissonance), then everyone, including the "guy who lays down in front of the tank" that jessriedel mentions, is selfish by definition. [1]

An alternate definition of selfishness: Consider the world as a set of concentric circles centered on an individual. The narrowest encompassing the individual, the next encompassing the people they love most (usually children), the next their greater circle of family or friends, and so on to the largest circle the includes the world. (What appears in any circle and how far from center it appears can vary greatly from person to person. Some include animals, the environment or god(s).) The more one's interests and decisions are concentrated on the inner circles, especially the most inner one, the more selfish one is. An altruistic person would be one where the gradient of interest doesn't peak at the center. This definition is in line with the meaning of "selfishness" as commonly used, its "common sense" definition.

-

[1] The only way your definition would not be tautological is if individual humans weren't atomic or autonomous agents. It's something to consider. It's certainly possible that we have genes that predispose us to care about or subconsciously act for the benefit of things beyond our individual self, in the same way individual cells in a multicellular organism are preprogrammed to act for the good of the organism. If multicellular organisms evolved from single-celled organisms and cells lost their "selfishness" in the process, it is entirely possible that it can happen to the "cells" that make up larger "organisms" such as a species or an ecosystem.

Exactly. Words are reductions of reality and it's very easy to let yourself be lured into a language which makes something that's actually quite complex and fuzzy seem rather simple and defined.

What is selfish and what is altruistic isn't as easily defined. In fact the only way to really clearly determine whether an action is selfish or altruistic would be to understand the intent behind the action.

But of course not even the individual are always aware of why they do what they so that doesn't really help us.

I'd call that enlightened self-interest. I think one could argue the motivation for cooperation is also enlightened self-interest. As you say, the big difference between selfishness and self-interest seems to be a matter of foresight.

I too believe there is some meat on the bones of psychological egoism [1], the thought that altruism in its most purest sense doesn't really exist, because there is personal benefit (feeling good) to being altruistic.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

Biz Stone talks about selflessness being selfish because altruistic acts release the same chemicals in the brain as winning money, apparently. I help out at a local work group restoring old buildings. It's only a morning a month but it puts a smile on my face for the rest of the day, partly because I enjoy the work but mainly because I am volunteering.

Yeah but I mean that logic works in reverse too. And altruism has a couple million years head start on 'winning money' when it comes to fundamental motivators.

Feeling good about being benevolent is the least transgression for an altruist. I would argue that being fully consistent when it comes to living philosophically altruistic is only possible if you're prepared to die for it (quickly).

Think about it, every time you take a bite of food, you act selfishly. I guarantee you if you look hard enough you will find someone that is more starved than you are when you take that bite.... even if you, yourself are starving. How much more selfless and altruistic can you be than to give all the food you would otherwise eat for the benefit of your fellow man that otherwise would starve? (nevermind what it says about them to accept your sacrifice). How can you not be selfish when you choose to service your own need of nourishment, no matter how little you take, over choosing to feed those others that need it more.

Egoism on the other hand doesn't mean that you don't cooperate. It doesn't mean that you can't be benevolent. True, it doesn't demand any of that from you, but in the long view and all other things being equal, it's usually in your interest to cooperate and to be benevolent.

being fully consistent when it comes to living philosophically altruistic is only possible if you're prepared to die for it (quickly).

Imagine you're the only skilled baker in town. Does your community benefit more from you when you starve yourself to death, or when you keep producing food for them?

I took this specific quote as killing yourself is the most merciful thing you could do for others. Dark indeed.

The arguments that soundly defeat all the pure forms of psychological egoism are available in the criticism section. The guy who lays down in front of the tank isn't being selfish in any reasonable sense of the word, and most attempts to rescue the claim end up trivializing it, by simply calling any goal-oriented behavior "selfish", even when those goals are clearly not for one's own benefit.

There are more defensible forms of psychological egoism, but your summary ("there is personal benefit (feeling good) to being altruistic") doesn't work.

This definition of selfishness (which I agree is the most consistent) was strongly associated with Ayn Rand's [1]. Having grown up in Europe, reading her works was quite a shock.

The only thing I'd add is that in my experience "short-sighted self-interested decisions" are made by people who do not understand externalities, and/or who favour a locally optimal but globally sub-optimal scenario (defectors in the Prisonner's Dilemma). "Socialist" policies like a congestion charge or pollution regulation are thus consistent with individual rights and an individualist philosophy.

[1] see: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html for quotes from her various books.

The problem with your use of "selfish" is that there is nothing forcing human identity to be understood in such a way that the 'self' is only your individual being. Your identity includes a large part of your culture, and your 'self' can include other people in the abstract. It's not black-and-white, nor is it a contradiction. You can be selfish for your tribe or your family, without expecting rewards to your individual being for doing so.

One thing this doesn't consider: how do your choices affect how the world after you die?

To understand and appreciate personal benefit of cooperation requires much more thinking than to understand that cooperation often is not beneficial immediately or in very short term.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com